European Reviewhttp://journals.cambridge.org/ERW

Additional services for European Review:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

Mentor and Constant Friend: the Life of George Francis Fitzgerald (1851–1901)

D. WEAIRE and J. M. D. COEY

European Review / Volume 15 / Issue 04 / October 2007, pp 513 ­ 521DOI: 10.1017/S106279870700049X, Published online: 18 September 2007

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S106279870700049X

How to cite this article:D. WEAIRE and J. M. D. COEY (2007). Mentor and Constant Friend: the Life of George Francis Fitzgerald (1851–1901). European Review, 15, pp 513­521 doi:10.1017/S106279870700049X

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ERW, IP address: 134.226.254.162 on 25 Apr 2013

European Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, 513–521 © 2007 Academia Europæa

doi:10.1017/S106279870700049X Printed in the United Kingdom

Focus: Fitzgerald and the

Maxwellians

Mentor and Constant Friend: the Life

of George Francis Fitzgerald

(1851–1901)

D . W E A I R E a n d J . M . D . C O E Y

School of Physics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland. Email: dweaire@tcd.ie

George Francis Fitzgerald is known to most students of physics for his proposalof the Fitzgerald (-Lorentz) Contraction, but this is a minor episode in aremarkable life. Many of his ideas found expression through others. His powerfulinfluence on the physics of his time has been reconstructed from hiscorrespondence, as leader of the Maxwellians.

Scientific Saint

As historians continue to dig over the period in which classical physics came toa climax of fruition and failure, the modern reputation of George FrancisFitzgerald (or in the more aristocratic spelling, FitzGerald, which appears on hisbookplate and elsewhere), grows steadily, almost to the proportions that it enjoyedin 1901 when he died and was accorded the rare distinction of a fulsome obituaryand portrait in the new American journal Physical Review.

Lord Kelvin1 said then: ‘it seems to me that no one ever attained more nearlythan Fitzgerald to the chief aim of man as defined by the shorter catechism of theChurch of Scotland, to glorify God and enjoy him for ever.’ He was indeed, asJohn Bell2 declared, ‘some sort of scientific saint’. Bell was probably unawarethat Ramsay, Fitzgerald’s correspondent on matters spectroscopic, declared thathe was ‘as good as St Gabriel in giving help’. His generous (though betimesimpatient and intemperate) personality did not lend itself to compilingmonumental works. Instead he left scattered traces of his influence in short

514 D. Weaire and J. M. D. Coey

Figure 1. Fitzgerald.

publications and a voluminous correspondence, often consisting of questions toand answers from Fitzgerald. It is yet to be fully analysed.

Michael Purser3 has described the inbred coterie of professional and academicfamilies, clustered around Trinity College Dublin, out of which Fitzgeraldemerged, as did many other notable figures of his century, from the Duke ofWellington to Oscar Wilde.

From that upbringing, privileged both in social and intellectual terms, heembarked on the obvious career for a man of his egregious talents, entering TrinityCollege and soon becoming Fellow and Erasmus Smith Professor of Natural andExperimental Philosophy. He did so in the same year that John Hewitt Jellett, aversatile scholar who presided over the mathematical and physical section of theBritish Association, became Provost of the college, in succession to yet anothernotable Trinity physicist, Humphrey Lloyd. He never left.

515The Life of George Francis Fitzgerald

Comfortably established at Trinity College (or at least initially so), he wasnevertheless a restless figure, and constantly in touch with the wider world ofphysics – often as a conspicuous participant in the meetings of the BritishAssociation, which greatly stimulated him. For example, at the 1897 meeting ofthe BA that was held in Toronto (requiring a Transatlantic crossing that seemsto have bonded a lot of close friendships by enforced leisure, which we might envytoday), Oliver Lodge raised a question: should one expect the spectral lines of anatom to be doubled by a magnetic field, or simply broadened? Lodge took the boathome to Liverpool straight after the meeting, but Fitzgerald availed of apost-conference trip laid on by the Dominion government to take delegates byspecial train across the prairies to the Rockies and British Columbia. There he hadtime to think, and he came to the correct conclusion that the lines should bedoubled (the Zeeman Effect). He explained this conclusion, which was veryrelevant to the work of his former pupil Thomas Preston, in a letter to Nature1.

He became a favourite source of advice for many colleagues. MonsignorMolloy, who assisted Marconi in his marine trials, asked him how the coherer(Marconi’s detector) worked, when travelling with him on the railway. John Perryapproached him with a tricky point in rotational dynamics, being engaged inwriting a book on spinning tops, and stuck at one point. This was any easy one:Fitzgerald’s father-in-law had solved the problem and published it his bookTheory of Friction. The most persistent questions came from the Maxwellians.

The Maxwellians

Fitzgerald became the acknowledged leader of an international invisible college,the Maxwellians,4, 5 the apostles of James Clerk Maxwell. He was their Saint Paul,a constant source of advice, encouragement and bold ideas for them all, as wellas a wider circle of correspondents. They included principally Hertz, Lodge,Larmor and especially Heaviside.

Heaviside’s relationship with Fitzgerald was an attraction of opposites: theprestigious public figure and the reclusive eccentric, linked in mutual admirationby a shared obsession with electromagnetic theory, and interacting at a distance.It was Fitzgerald that led the representations that brought the impoverishedHeaviside a small state pension in recognition of his extraordinary individualcontributions to science and technology.

Richard Feynman remarked that ‘from the long view of the history of mankind10,000 years from now, there can be little doubt that the most significantevent in the 19th century will be seen as Maxwell’s discovery of the laws ofelectrodynamics’. Not Napoleon, not Marx, not Freud, not the abolition of slaveryand serfdom, not the convulsions of the Commune, the Indian mutiny or theAmerican civil war, but the fruitful fundamental theory that was brought to itsfinal perfection by the Maxwellians.

516 D. Weaire and J. M. D. Coey

Fitzgerald never actually met Maxwell, nor did he correspond with him directly.Their closest contact came after Fitzgerald submitted his first important paper tothe Royal Society and received from its Secretary (George Gabriel Stokes) areferee’s report written by Maxwell. It arrived just two days after Maxwell haddied. The report contains detailed criticisms of the work, and a plea to justify thephysical basis of his equations. Stokes comments ‘The physical bent of Maxwell’smind would naturally lead him to picture himself a physical state, and then sethimself to work out the mathematics of it. The bent of your mind is rather to lookat the mathematical expressions and then seek for the physical interpretations, orperhaps even in great measure leave that alone.’ Fitzgerald was to prove thischaracterization utterly wrong – or did the young man take Stokes’ advice toheart?

Mathematician at large

Fitzgerald had much in common with another imposing natural philosopher of histime, William Thomson, Lord Kelvin. They were both Irish Protestants (ofdifferent sorts), both Irish Unionists, and they were both fascinated by the‘all-pervading ether’ (albeit from different and sometimes conflicting perspec-tives). They shared a realistic, practical attitude to science, together with a beliefin its economic importance. Both had the advantage of an excellent grounding inthe modern (i.e. French) mathematics of their time, and upon that confidentanalytical base they were both able to explore a wide range of physical science.Despite their high mathematical competence, they both distrusted mathematicalsophistication. Symbols were no substitute for facts, as Thomson and Tait warnedin their textbook, and Fitzgerald inveighed against Continental natural philoso-phers who over-elaborated their theories. Even Boltzmann came in for thistreatment, when he ventured into Fitzgerald’s favourite territory 1.

Pupils and proteges

In his college Fitzgerald was regarded as the ‘idol of the undergraduates and thehope of the older men’.1 He drew around him a circle of talented pupils andproteges – often very literally in the local tea rooms, as recounted by Robert LloydPraeger. Among them were:

Thomas Preston (1865–1900), a tenacious young researcher and scholar whowrote influential textbooks and discovered the Anomalous Zeeman Effect.John Townsend (1868–1957) who, with Ernest Rutherford, studied under J. J.Thomson at Cambridge, and became Professor at Oxford. Discoverer ofRamsauer–Townsend Effect.

517The Life of George Francis Fitzgerald

Frederick Trouton (1863–1927) who assisted Fitzgerald in his experiments andis known for ‘Trouton’s Rule’ in materials science. He went to UniversityCollege London in 1902.Edmund Fournier d’Albe (1868–?), versatile inventor (the first to transmit apicture by wireless), linguist and writer, author of the first popular work on theelectron theory, and the first to use a fractal construction in a physical model.Thomas Ranken Lyle (1860–1944), founder of the first physical laboratory in thesouthern hemisphere, in Melbourne.John Joly (1857–1933), energetic inventor and pioneering geophysicist asProfessor of Geology, and early advocate of radiotherapy.

Alone among these examples, Joly remained in Trinity (leading its volunteerdefence force against possible attack in the 1916 Easter Rebellion, and reconcilinghimself to its eventual consequences). Fitzgerald’s disciples scattered far andwide, as did the Anglo-Irish in general, and his legacy can be found in distantplaces, from Melbourne to the Punjab.

Scientific writings and less tangible influence

It fell to Joseph Larmor in Cambridge to gather up the ‘Scientific Writings ofthe late George Francis Fitzgerald’.1 He missed quite a few (some dozens) in theprocess, as Fitzgerald himself would surely have done. Even with due allowancefor omissions and unfinished works, this collection does not come close tomatching the collected works of comparable contemporaries, such as Kelvin andStokes. He often offered his best thoughts immediately to others – in private chator in correspondence, in public at the BA, in tea rooms, or even closer to homeat the meetings of the Dublin University Experimental Science Association. Hewas the dominant figure in that remarkable club, which avidly pursued all the latestexperiments and inventions. They had to change the rules to confer legitimacyon his domination of the entire proceedings.

DUESA was founded in the year after Fitzgerald was elected to Fellowship inTrinity. It was to comprise undergraduates and senior members and meet oncea month for tea, short presentations and demonstrations, followed by discussion.Its aim was to encourage ‘investigations and interesting experiments in allbranches of experimental science – physics and chemistry’. At the first meeting,on 13th March 1878, the first communication ‘On the Relations between theRadiometer and the Spheroidal State’ was by Fitzgerald. He continued to playthe leading role in the Association over the next ten years, submitting asmany communications and exhibits as there were meetings (49). Their rangespanned fresh and salt water rainbows, the deposition of metallic thin films,Crooke’s molecular shadows, his model of the ether, the analogy between heatand electricity, the thermal resistance of clothes, the relation of surface tensionto muscular contraction, photographs of the solar spectrum, electric light and

518 D. Weaire and J. M. D. Coey

power and much more. Other prominent figures in the association at that time wereJohn Joly (37 presentations), Emerson Reynolds (30), Fred Trouton (15) andGeorge Coffey (14). Four out of these five became Fellows of the Royal Society,as did Fitzgerald himself and several others among his Dublin associates.

When he did set out to publish his ideas and theories, they were often dashedoff in haste: ‘I rush out with all sorts of crude notions […]’ Many important ideaswere launched in a tentative or fragmentary form, mere straws in the wind or seedsbroadcast in the history of physics.

Straws in the wind

The most famous example of his sporadic style is that of the FitzgeraldContraction. This bold idea, to the effect that bodies should contract in thedirection of their motion through the ether, undoubtedly drew its inspiration fromthe sophisticated Maxwellian correspondence on properties of the electromag-netic field, as Hunt explains,4 but Fitzgerald misled posterity by appearing to pluckit out of thin air – or perhaps we should say out of the ether. It is not to be foundin the Scientific Writings. Perhaps Larmor grew exasperated by having to dig suchthings out of obscure sources, in this case a short note in the American journalScience.4

His name survives in relativity on account of this brilliant suggestion, whichwas not ‘baseless’ as some historians have thought, but rather was founded onMaxwellian theory.4

Asked what happens when the velocity of a body exceeded the speed of light,a case which the theory seemed not to encompass, he replied that this may wellbe impossible. We can only wonder what he would have made of Einstein’stheory, which arrived a few years after his death. A mere play of symbols? Morelikely, he would have rejoiced in another grand synthesis, like that of Maxwell.

J. D. Jackson has recently pointed out6 that Fitzgerald, rather than Tesla, wasthe first to envisage the Earth as surrounded by an electromagnetic resonator,which could be excited by thunderstorms. This was merely presented to the BritishAssociation in 1893, and briefly recorded:1 there were no equations, hardly anynumbers or references, no follow-up articles …

A few other examples, none of them very well known, follow in brief.

• According to Abraham Pais,7 he advanced with the first conception ofthe spin of the electron, in connection with magnetism – but the briefnote in question makes only an ambiguous reference to ‘rotation’.

• He certainly attributed mass to a change in the structure of space itself,but failed to develop this notion.1

• He gave the correct explanation of the origin of the tails of comets inanother brief paper.1

519The Life of George Francis Fitzgerald

• He was involved with Monck and others in the first use of photoelectricmeasurement in astronomy.8

• He made (with Wilson) an important contribution to the developmentof the electric arc as a source of illumination.1

The Hertz experiment

So far we have spoken of isolated contributions, quickly conceived and leftbehind. But underneath this restless activity lies a steadily accumulatingunderstanding of Maxwell, leading to a climax in 1887–88. Hertz’s 1887experiment9,10 – the emission of radio waves by an electric circuit – was the mostdramatic vindication of Maxwell’s theory. Fitzgerald thought long and hard aboutthis experimental possibility, but failed to promote an experiment close to home.In part this was because he could not see a way to detect the waves that hethought could be generated

And so it was that the young Heinrich Hertz, surrounded in Germany by sceptics(as regards the theory of Maxwell) made the breakthrough, using a spark detector.

Fitzgerald was elated. It was the crowning moment of his career when hisaddress1 to the 1888 British Association meeting gave him the opportunity toexpand lyrically upon the implications of the Hertz experiment. ‘We havesnatched the thunderbolt from Jove himself, and enslaved the all-pervading ether.’

Later he must have felt at least a pang or two of regret, especially when Marconicommercialised radio communication.10 Fitzgerald could have been to radio whatKelvin was to telegraphy at an earlier stage – and so become Baron Liffey?

Industrial and educational policy

Fitzgerald’s impassioned speeches in later life, advocating proper support forapplied research in universities and government laboratories, would be entirelyorthodox today but were radical in their time. Attis has recounted their contentagainst the background of late nineteenth-century Ireland.10 He made littleheadway in this crusade, and his polemics grew increasingly bitter.

Keen interest in the practical applications of science naturally translated intoconcern for technical education.11 At the same time he was a stern defender ofthe ideal of university education as self-motivated study. It was no part of thebusiness of the universities to teach, but rather: ‘The business of Universities isto advance culture and knowledge, and to afford students an opportunity oflearning how to do this.’

Furthermore (and despite his advocacy of applied science): ‘If Universities donot study useless subjects, who will?’ He was appointed to the Board of NationalEducation in 1888, and offered his blunt opinions of the quality of the readers used

520 D. Weaire and J. M. D. Coey

in National Schools – cheap and bad. But it was for the areas of technical andpractical education that he felt most concern. ‘Why are we so far behind in allthis in Ireland? Is it the fault of the farmers – of the industrial classes?’ ‘No. Itis the fault of our educational system. …. How can we expect any other resultwhen the educational machinery of the country is controlled by a lot of very worthyold bookworms with more sympathy with the theory of equations and Greek versethan with the industrial welfare of the country? [ … .] Blind leaders of the blind,we will soon all be in the ditch together.’ ‘The people are starving of bread andyou have given them educational stones, and their blood cries out against you.’

For his pains, he found himself Commissioner for Intermediate Education andmember the Board for Technical Education as well. The latter was responsiblefor a new technical institute, eventually to become today’s Dublin Institute ofTechnology.

He was ever concerned that scientific discourse should be clear and intelligible,as much for the benefit of students as for the practitioners themselves. Meaninglessdefinitions earned his contempt. ‘When a student is told, as an explanation ofthe term mass that it means the quantity of matter, there in an appeal made fromthe obscure to the more obscure. It is a case of huggermugger. He is demoralizedby having to swallow a term of which neither he nor his teacher has a distinct idea,and he naturally concludes that the whole subject is one which no fellow canunderstand.’

He believed that young children should be introduced to physical reasoning byworking out the consequences of simple experiments, and he was influential inthe introduction of the new ‘heuristic’ methods of science education in Ireland,12

which took this attitude quite far. Heuristic textbooks had sealed pages of theory,to be opened only by the student after an experimental investigation. As with mosteducational fashions, this doctrine recurs from time to time.

Conclusion

What is it about our history that slights Irishmen and Danes, asked Jackson inhis note6 on one of Fitzgerald’s forgotten accomplishments. We have been unableto fathom the meaning of the inclusion of Danes here – Oersted has a secure seatin the scientific pantheon – but the great man did share some characteristics ofHamlet, it is true. He was eloquent, he drew close friends and widespreadadmirers, he was resentful of authority – and there was a self-destructive elementin his denouncements of even his own college. A lot of his anguished frustrationwas surely was of his own making. But he was a truly inspiring influence on thosewho knew him, their ‘mentor and constant friend’, as Mrs Preston wrote for herdying husband.13

The teaching of physics can become desiccated and dispirited if we entirelyneglect its vital human element. We too can be inspired by this energetic and

521The Life of George Francis Fitzgerald

expansive Victorian and his many friends. As Lodge said, ‘Ay, he was a man worthknowing’.

References and Notes

1. J. Larmor (Ed) (1902) The Scientific Writings of the late George FrancisFitzgerald (Dublin: Hodges, Figgis).

2. J. Bell (abridged by D. Weaire) (1992) George Francis Fitzgerald.Physics World 5(9), 31.

3. M. Purser (2004) Jellett, O’Brien, Purser and Stokes: SevenGenerations, Four Families (Dublin: Prejmer Verlag) and article in thisvolume.

4. B. Hunt (1991) The Maxwellians (Ithaca: Cornell University Press) andarticle in this volume.

5. Jed Buchwald used the term Maxwellians in a wider and moreCambridge-centred sense. See J. Z. Buchwald (1985) From Maxwell toMicrophysics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press)

6. J. D. Jackson (2003) ‘FitzGerald’s observations preceded Tesla’s,’ Letterto the Editor, APS News 12(7), 5.

7. A. Pais (1986) Inward Bound (Oxford: Oxford University Press)8. C. J. Butler and I. Elliott (1993) Stellar Photometry – Current

Techniques and Future Developments (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press).

9. J. G. O’Hara and W. Pricha (1987) Hertz and the Maxwellians (London:Peter Peregrinus, IEE History of Science Series 8) and article in thisvolume.

10. D. Attis, article in this volume.11. N. McMillan (Ed) (2000) Prometheus’s Fire: a History of Scientific and

Technological Education in Ireland (Carlow: Tyndall Publications).12. M. R. Quane (2003) Heurism in science teaching in Irish Schools

1878–1024. PhD Dissertation, Trinity College Dublin.13. D. Weaire and S. O’Connor (1987) Unfulfilled renown: Thomas Preston

(1860–1900) and the anomalous Zeeman effect, Annals of Science 44,617.

About the Authors

Denis Weaire, a Vice-President of the Academia Europaea, is Professor ofNatural and Experimental Philosophy (1727) at Trinity College Dublin, as wasFitzgerald. His research is concerned with soft condensed matter. He is active inpromoting the history of physics throughout Europe.

Michael Coey is Professor of Experimental Physics in Trinity College Dublin.His research is in magnetic materials and their applications.